4 ms·

In no way is "buy" in and of itself incorrect terminology. One can "buy" or "purchase" goods, services, subscriptions or -- yes -- licenses. And by the way, wh

In no way is "buy" in and of itself incorrect terminology. One can "buy" or "purchase" goods, services, subscriptions or -- yes -- licenses. And by the way, when one buys a copy of software, what one really buys is at best a perpetual license to use it; one is not buying the software itself. (This point, of course, is at the heart of considerable open source ideology.) The petition's authors have a reasonable claim to make that buying an e-book on Amazon should not be portrayed as the equivalent of buying a paper book. But the way they actually worded the redress requested in their petition is not well-supported by the facts.

aspensmonster 14y ago
What aspect of the wording makes the request to change from "purchase/buy" to "license" not well-supported by the facts? The way I read the petition, such requirements would be in place only for products that incorporate DRM, not for any type of software whatsoever.
- Kerrick 14y ago
  Because whether a product has DRM or not has absolutely no effect on the license, the way you purchase it, or the rights you do or do not get. DRM only enforces the license.
  - aspensmonster 14y ago
    (Insert standard IANAL preface here. What follows are my own non-professional thoughts on the matter) The petition is utilizing the observation that there are certain rights associated with the terminology of "buying" (or "selling") some product that have been developed over hundreds of years with laws regarding physical commodities. Physical objects are relatively simple to understand; the right to resell or repurpose a physical object is well understood, for example. Such rights are not merely an artifact of the legal system but are inherent to the nature of physical things. No matter the letter of the law, the purchase of a physical object implicates its transfer of possession and the physical capabilities such possession implies (destruction, use, retooling, repurposing, reselling, etc). Intellectual constructs are a different matter, be it the selling of such intellectual consctructs that interface with physical commodities --think healthcare or perhaps selling access to some physical but expensive machine-- or the selling of intellectual constructs themselves --like stories or other expressions of ideas. The law has frustratingly used traditional property laws as its basis for investigating rights and liabilities with respect to these intellectual constructs, despite mounting observations that such a foundation is typically unsound. Licenses for software, as an example, can arbitrarily grant and deny rights, unlike the rights of physical commodities that are an inherent consequence of their physical nature. The practical consequence for a consumer is that the "buying" that occurs for a license or some other intellectual construct has the potential to bear _little_ resemblance or _significant_ resemblance to the traditional notions of "buying" a physical commodity that consumers have been exposed to for centuries. The rights associated with various software licenses, for instance, can vary considerably. "Buying" a piece of GPL software and "buying" a piece of DRM-restricted and/or proprietary software are not, by any reasonable interpretation of each situation, the same thing. One who purchases a GPL-licensed piece of software is closer to the spirit of the term "buy" in its historical context of the transfer of physical commodities at some set price. Purchasing the proprietary and DRM'd software is more akin to "licensing" its use for specific cases and more closely aligns with contract law vis a vis services rendered. Perhaps it would be better to say that one never "buys" software outright but rather "purchases a license," the rights and liabilities of which may vary dramatically, thus sidestepping the historical connotations of "buying" a physical object. But then of course the consumer loses any and all distinction between different types of licenses, effectively introducing the same problem as attempting to use only the term "buying." In such a case, rights that were once well-understood and reasonably presupposed by the consumer are now entirely up in the air and largely in the hands of the producer. In either case, it's clear to me that conflating the terms introduces problems. I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate. The current example on the crest of the news deals with the SimCity games. I know I would say that I "bought" SimCity 2000 (regardless of what the letter of the law would implicate). However, if I were to fork over cash for the most recent version of the SimCity franchise, I would never say that I "bought" it, but rather that I "licensed" it.
    - zokier 14y ago
      I feel you are completely missing the point here. The point was that draconian licensing is draconian with or without enforcement (eg DRM). > I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate. This is utterly false. You can't deduce anything about the license from the fact that the license is enforced.
      - aspensmonster 14y ago
        DRM is a set of technical policies: The user may install the software X times. Y users may use the software at once. This video stream will not decode properly without the private key embedded in chip ABC. This DVD will only play in DVD players that have region code Z. This game requires a persistent network connection in order to crunch game logic and stream assets. If these policies are not guaranteed to provide any insight into the arrangements of the license, then how can we say with confidence that the DRM is indeed a license enforcement mechanism at all? If the DRM is designed in such a way as to permit only 1 install ever, and yet a perusing of the legal license finds no such wording, then the DRM is not (accurately) enforcing the license and (so far as I can tell) cannot be said to be enforcing it.
        CurtMonash 14y ago
        If your complaint is that the presence of aggressive DRM means that the seller/licenser isn't really adhering to the stated or implied license, then the correct remedy still isn't to change the wording from "buy" to "license".
        aspensmonster 14y ago
        My primary concern with DRM is its anti-user behaviour, whether such an attitude is codified in the license or not. I believe it should not be allowed at all because I believe it violates natural rights that the users of software and hardware have. Setting aside the fundamental philosophy, I'd say I probably agree with you regarding the wording; namely, that the term "buying" must be removed needn't be the remedy. I think Algorias put it well by instead stating that the term "license" must be included in the marketing, whether one states "buy a license to this product" or else elects to shorten it to "license this product." In either case the licensed nature of the product is at least introduced, even if it doesn't come with "Defective by Design" warning labels.
algorias 14y ago
"Buy a license for SimCity now!" is correct usage, which might be shortened to "License SimCity now!". These two phrases definitely don't have the same meaning as "Buy SimCity now!" If you conflated the two terms then it would be ok to be selling photos of apples and just calling them apples. This is clearly absurd.

aspensmonster 14y ago

What aspect of the wording makes the request to change from "purchase/buy" to "license" not well-supported by the facts? The way I read the petition, such requirements would be in place only for products that incorporate DRM, not for any type of software whatsoever.

Kerrick 14y ago
Because whether a product has DRM or not has absolutely no effect on the license, the way you purchase it, or the rights you do or do not get. DRM only enforces the license.
- aspensmonster 14y ago
  (Insert standard IANAL preface here. What follows are my own non-professional thoughts on the matter) The petition is utilizing the observation that there are certain rights associated with the terminology of "buying" (or "selling") some product that have been developed over hundreds of years with laws regarding physical commodities. Physical objects are relatively simple to understand; the right to resell or repurpose a physical object is well understood, for example. Such rights are not merely an artifact of the legal system but are inherent to the nature of physical things. No matter the letter of the law, the purchase of a physical object implicates its transfer of possession and the physical capabilities such possession implies (destruction, use, retooling, repurposing, reselling, etc). Intellectual constructs are a different matter, be it the selling of such intellectual consctructs that interface with physical commodities --think healthcare or perhaps selling access to some physical but expensive machine-- or the selling of intellectual constructs themselves --like stories or other expressions of ideas. The law has frustratingly used traditional property laws as its basis for investigating rights and liabilities with respect to these intellectual constructs, despite mounting observations that such a foundation is typically unsound. Licenses for software, as an example, can arbitrarily grant and deny rights, unlike the rights of physical commodities that are an inherent consequence of their physical nature. The practical consequence for a consumer is that the "buying" that occurs for a license or some other intellectual construct has the potential to bear _little_ resemblance or _significant_ resemblance to the traditional notions of "buying" a physical commodity that consumers have been exposed to for centuries. The rights associated with various software licenses, for instance, can vary considerably. "Buying" a piece of GPL software and "buying" a piece of DRM-restricted and/or proprietary software are not, by any reasonable interpretation of each situation, the same thing. One who purchases a GPL-licensed piece of software is closer to the spirit of the term "buy" in its historical context of the transfer of physical commodities at some set price. Purchasing the proprietary and DRM'd software is more akin to "licensing" its use for specific cases and more closely aligns with contract law vis a vis services rendered. Perhaps it would be better to say that one never "buys" software outright but rather "purchases a license," the rights and liabilities of which may vary dramatically, thus sidestepping the historical connotations of "buying" a physical object. But then of course the consumer loses any and all distinction between different types of licenses, effectively introducing the same problem as attempting to use only the term "buying." In such a case, rights that were once well-understood and reasonably presupposed by the consumer are now entirely up in the air and largely in the hands of the producer. In either case, it's clear to me that conflating the terms introduces problems. I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate. The current example on the crest of the news deals with the SimCity games. I know I would say that I "bought" SimCity 2000 (regardless of what the letter of the law would implicate). However, if I were to fork over cash for the most recent version of the SimCity franchise, I would never say that I "bought" it, but rather that I "licensed" it.
  - zokier 14y ago
    I feel you are completely missing the point here. The point was that draconian licensing is draconian with or without enforcement (eg DRM). > I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate. This is utterly false. You can't deduce anything about the license from the fact that the license is enforced.
    - aspensmonster 14y ago
      DRM is a set of technical policies: The user may install the software X times. Y users may use the software at once. This video stream will not decode properly without the private key embedded in chip ABC. This DVD will only play in DVD players that have region code Z. This game requires a persistent network connection in order to crunch game logic and stream assets. If these policies are not guaranteed to provide any insight into the arrangements of the license, then how can we say with confidence that the DRM is indeed a license enforcement mechanism at all? If the DRM is designed in such a way as to permit only 1 install ever, and yet a perusing of the legal license finds no such wording, then the DRM is not (accurately) enforcing the license and (so far as I can tell) cannot be said to be enforcing it.
      - CurtMonash 14y ago
        If your complaint is that the presence of aggressive DRM means that the seller/licenser isn't really adhering to the stated or implied license, then the correct remedy still isn't to change the wording from "buy" to "license".
        aspensmonster 14y ago
        My primary concern with DRM is its anti-user behaviour, whether such an attitude is codified in the license or not. I believe it should not be allowed at all because I believe it violates natural rights that the users of software and hardware have. Setting aside the fundamental philosophy, I'd say I probably agree with you regarding the wording; namely, that the term "buying" must be removed needn't be the remedy. I think Algorias put it well by instead stating that the term "license" must be included in the marketing, whether one states "buy a license to this product" or else elects to shorten it to "license this product." In either case the licensed nature of the product is at least introduced, even if it doesn't come with "Defective by Design" warning labels.

algorias 14y ago

"Buy a license for SimCity now!" is correct usage, which might be shortened to "License SimCity now!". These two phrases definitely don't have the same meaning as "Buy SimCity now!" If you conflated the two terms then it would be ok to be selling photos of apples and just calling them apples. This is clearly absurd.